I have a confession to make. It was me that paid for the chlorine gas factory, Falluja 2. To quote from the CIA "The best examples are the chlorine and phenol plants at Falluja 2. Falluja 2 was one of Iraq's principal CW [chemical weapons] production facilities".

As a British tax payer I funded the Export Credit Guarantee Department which insured British exporters against non-payment. So when the Iraqi government refused to pay the final installment for Fulluja 2 the British government paid the rest.

Tomorrow I expect troops will go to war against an army armed with western provided weapons to destroy a chemical weapons factory that we supplied and paid for.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, the country that supplied most of the Sept 11 bombers and funds al-Quada is currently America's top arms customer receiving a total of $39.6 billion in sales from US companies and a further $394 million of weapons from the US State Department.

Will we ever learn?

Well, it looks like war is coming, probably this month so I think any more writing about whether war is good or bad is a bit of a waste of time. Instead, I thought I'd try to make some predictions about what is going to happen next.

Health warning: my predictions are usually wrong!

War in Iraq

Iraq's military is in an even worse state than it was during the last Gulf War. Saddam is hated by the majority Shia population and by the Kurdish minority.

Prediction: The conventional war will be a walkover, although it may trigger terrorism in retaliation. America will delay but eventually allow democratic elections. An Islamic government will be elected, probably linked to the biggest opposition group, the Iranian supporting Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. (This was the reason Bush Senior left Saddam in power.)

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is of course at the heart of the present conflict. Al Quada was formed to drive America out of Saudia Arabia, Bin Laden is Saudi as were 15 out of the 19 September 11 bombers.

The background for this is that after World War II, President Roosevelt realised that the coming war was going to be with the Soviet Union and that America would need a supply of oil to win it. He met with the House of Saud and from then on the US has backed their repressive leadership in return for oil.

The ongoing US assistance in crushing democracy in Saudi Arabia has not been popular with either Saudis or the millions of Muslims who turn to Saudi Arabia every day. Contrary to popular belief Arabs love democracy as much as anyone else. Their dislike of America is about American policy (e.g. denying democracy in Arab countries) not about American values (e.g. democracy).

Now the cold war is over this deal is no longer necessary. Bush has recognized that replacing Saudi Arabia's monarchy with a democracy will be a vital start in winning the political war against terrorism. Of course every war against terrorism that has been won was won politically, not militarily.

Prediction: As soon as Iraq's oil is flowing again, reducing our dependance on Saudi Arabia, there will be increased political pressure to replace the House of Saud with democracy. Eventually democracy will be established, followed by an Islamic group taking power. Al-Queda will immediately begin to lose support.

Israel/Palestine

Along with Saudi Arabia, the Israel/Palestine conflict is the other big factor that results in anti-Americanism and terrorism.

Here are some facts:

• Palestinians are dependent on Israel for jobs
• Israel is dependent on Palestinian labour
• Nearly every Arab country has agreed Israel has a right to exist
• Most Palestinians agree Israel has a right to exist
• Most Israelis agree Palestine has a right to exist
• Palestinians are dependent on funding from the European Union and the UN
• Israel is dependent on funding from the USA

One of the really strange things about this conflict is that there is not such a huge amount of disagreement between the two sides on any of the key issues. During the Oslo process they even managed some progress on where the borders between Palestine and Israel should be drawn.

Both sides need each other but have an enormous hatred built up over generations. Nonetheless, just as in Ireland this conflict could be solved by Europe and USA delivering the relevant parties.

There will also be enormous pressure from the Arab countries for this issue to be resolved. At the moment we can comfortably ignore leaders like Saddam when they support the Palestinians and we know that the Saudi government will ignore their own people who are more radical than their leadership. However Arab democracies will demand action in a credible way and will be more likely to withhold their oil if necessary.

Prediction: If democracies are installed in more Arab countries, the Israeli/Palestine problem will be solved shortly after along the lines already agreed at Oslo. Just as in Ireland there will be a tail of violence from unsupported extremist groups but over a decade or so even this will stop.

Am I insanely optimistic or what?

I am writing this to help work through my own opinions about war. I have spent quite a lot of time reading up about the issues and I feel now that I am coming to a conclusion. This article covers the four reasons for war we have been given so far.

1. Al-Queda Links

According to the Bush administration (but not the Blair government) Saddam has close links with Al-Queda. It is very hard to answer this definitively but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence:

• A cursory examination of the Ba'ath Party ideology verses Al-Queda shows they have entirely opposite views. Collaboration between would be as likely as between the Ku Klux Klan and the Black Panthers. The Ba'ath party has Christian leaders which outrages Al-Queda.
• The recent Bin Laden tape condemns Saddam.
• Saddam has proudly admitted links to various anti-Israel/US terrorist groups which share his ideology. Why would he secretly support a group that hates him?

On the other hand while there is a lack of evidence linking Saddam to Al-Queda there are strong links between the group and US allies such as Saudi Arabia and other countries mentioned in the US Indictment.

There is also of course the public record that the US funded the Taliban/Al-Queda ($3 billion in arms and aid!) as they thought correctly that they would provide strong resistance to the socialist/communist regimes such as Iraq and the former Soviet Union.

It could be argued that if we were serious about punishing those who started Al-Queda then arresting some members of the Reagan administration would be the place to begin.

2. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

One of the strange things about chemical and biological weapons is that the fear they inspire is not linked to their destructiveness. The reasons terrorist groups have used conventional bombs and that governments have nuclear weapons is that both of these systems are more militarily effective than the so-called WMD.

Although Iraq certainly is guilty of having a WMD program (we know because we provided much of the materials) there are far more dangerous weapons in the world, for example Pakistan which the US has named as one of Al-Queda's supporters has nuclear weapons and a policy of first use. North Korea also has nuclear weapons and in fact could even be a risk to the USA. There are many more.

Any unbiased risk assessment would put Iraq fairly low down on the list of countries that are danger to the West.

3. Freeing the Iraqi People

For me this is the most powerful argument for war. Reading about a two year old being burned in front of her parents by Saddam's secret police is one of the many stories that puts in a human context the roughly 2 million people who have died because of the present Iraqi regime.

The difficulties I have here though are that most of these deaths occurred during the period when the US/UK were actively supporting Saddam. In 1987 an Early Day Motion was drawn in the UK parliament to oppose UK arms sales to Iraq, every single member of the present British cabinet, including Tony Blair refused to sign it.

Donald Rumsfeld's record is even worse. In a triumph of cynicism the British government managed to approve military exports to Iraq two days after the invasion of Kuwait!

To add to this we have all the other countries in the world where just as many people are dying and which are either being ignored or actively supported by the same people that claim to be human rights advocates for Iraqis.

On balance, it would appear that this war has nothing to do with helping the Iraqi people although this may be a positive side effect.

4. The Authority of the United Nations

President Bush has said the UN will be "irrelevant" if it does not approve war. While it is true that the UN Security Council has a mixed record the UN as a whole has been one of the most successful organizations of the last century. Tens if not hundreds of millions of lives have been saved by its many humanitarian and development programs. To describe this as "irrelevant" is very strange.

One of the reasons the security council has not been as effective as it should have been is because US has used their veto more frequently than any other country (Middle East Vetoes, could not find a full list). Bush has also attacked the UN's International Criminal Court, the 1972 biological weapons treaty, etc.

From his record, it is very difficult to believe that Bush is a supporter of the UN or other multilateral organizations.

Conclusions

None of the arguments given by Blair/Bush for war stand up to even cursory examination. There may be other reasons for war including securing the oil supply, protecting Israel, revenge, warning to other more powerful regimes, for American internal consumption following the inability to get Bin Laden or more likely a combination of many reasons.

On the information that has been made publicly available I could not support a war.